ACC made the wrong choice for #12

bullet · **Joined:** Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm **Posts:** 979

<<Another differenct scenerio is would ACC expansion passed with a different third candidate with BC and SU -Say RU, Pitt, WVU, or UConn? >>

The ACC wanted Miami primarily. However, from a long term market standpoint, BC, SU and Rutgers might have been a better mix. Even better would be to drop WF and add VT. Then you could have 4 BE members + UVA and MD in the north with the Carolinas and south in the southern division. The ACC then really would dominate the Atlantic Coast.

<<The SEC played around with Miami, but agreed did not really want the school at the time. WVU was more desirable and was the next choice after South Carolina.>>

That is directly contrary to everything I heard and remembered. When FSU and Texas told the SEC they weren't interested, they went after Miami and Arkansas. South Carolina was the team they had to take when Miami turned them down. Miami wanted the ACC back then, but the ACC wasn't interested. There was a lot of SEC and Miami talk. The only way your rumour is true is if what someone posted somewhere else today is true and Miami wanted a different revenue split than the SEC was offering. The BE had basically a winner take all revenue split in football.

dogsncocks · **Posted:** Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:29 pm

With BC prevailing in its effort to have the earlier and lower exit fee and join the ACC in 2005, I suppose it is all generally settled.

The question may be that in five or six years down the road, will BC be happy with its decision? It is assumed the travel costs involved were projected beforehand.

BC will cultivate rivalries in the ACC. However, they will not have a "natural" geographic rival as would have been the case with Syracuse, UCONN, or Rutgers. They may be able to schedule some nearby out-of-conference opponents. It remains to be seen what BE schools will schedule BC in the future, or how long the bitter feelings last.

In the last round of conference moves, BC, TCU, and UTEP (OK, USF too) accepted "invites" that may be viewed as geographically challenging. Each thought they were moving-up to more pretigious or lucrative opportunities. For some, the moves will prove wise.

For football, the BE still has a fine group of 8 as a whole. One or two of these schools will emerge and generally dominate as in other conferences. With the BE's unique structure with extensive, power bb, and comparatively fewer number of fb schools as it relates to other BCS conferences, there is the impression the BE is "not done" with expansion or re-organizational efforts. What the BE did do is withstand the defections and maintain their BCS status.

Many of us like the idea of a true, mostly pure, "northeast", 1-A conference. But it would take Penn State, BC, Maryland, Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, UCONN, Rutgers, etc. all being together. However, the BE moved to the midwest and south for new additions (including bb), the Big 10 has PSU, and the ACC now has BC. Three NE schools (Army, Navy, and Temple) are/will be independent. The sad thing is a comprehensive, northeastern conference could have been done about twenty years ago had it not been for petty issues and the failure of long term thinking by most parties involved.
Any prospect of "it" developing in the forseeable future is extremely remote. Power schools like security, and any chance a multiple number of them would come together to create a new league in the NE belongs in the "dream" category. Building on the current BE structure, of which most of the schools would come from, is not practical due to the conference having a substantial bb only component. Also, the politics and consensus building tasks would be near beyond comprehension.

Now, if Notre Dame just said they would play BE fb, what a boost that would be. That though, is very remote as well. My hunch is ND will end up in the Big 10 within five to seven years. Just a guess!

sportsgeog · **Joined:** Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm **Posts:** 321

Quote:

Three NE schools (Army, Navy, and Temple) are/will be independent. The sad thing is a comprehensive, northeastern conference could have been done about twenty years ago had it not been for petty issues and the failure of long term thinking by most parties involved.
Any prospect of "it" developing in the forseeable future is extremely remote. Power schools like security, and any chance a multiple number of them would come together to create a new league in the NE belongs in the "dream" category. Building on the current BE structure, of which most of the schools would come from, is not practical due to the conference having a substantial bb only component. Also, the politics and consensus building tasks would be near beyond comprehension.

I don't think that ND and PSU ever coming into the BE is possible and very remote.

But I think the UConn model over a 10 year period could be tried on at least another NE school.

Marshall is the best of all the CUSA members to join, and maintains the Northeast footprint.

It is possible that Temple could rejoin the league. If what the BE sees as nothing but their equivalents in the CUSA candidates.

There's an image and a household identify problem here, and more CUSA teams farther away from the NE footprint (ala Memphis and UCF) would just drag the BE into being a secondary conference in the prevailing ACC and SEC footprints. The identity would be harder to identify as a conference. I've pointed this out before. Rutgers playing Memphis or UCF on a Tuesday night will not help this image and household identity.

I think its better the Big East actually wait at least 10 years before expanding again.

shuffle · **Joined:** Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:01 pm **Posts:** 4

Quote:

The ACC wanted Miami primarily. However, from a long term market standpoint, BC, SU and Rutgers might have been a better mix.

When you're talking about markets, what the networks and conferences really care about is TV ratings, and Miami football puts millions more in front of TVs than Ruts ever will. Even in New Jersey.

The ACC should have added Miami and stopped at 10. They got off on the 12-team track because Miami liked the idea of having northeastern schools BC and SU move to the ACC with them, and the ACC teams got caught up in the idea of crippling the BE. Then UVa decided they had to help VT, and NCSU's president who is on Notre Dame's board of trustees wanted to block BC, and everything got even more messed up.

Anyway, a 10-team ACC minus BC and VT would be a better league, for both football and basketball reasons. With a smaller league you could still have the basketball home-and-home series every year that fans want to see (Dook-UNC-NCSU-Wake, etc.). Forget the football playoff game, just have Miami and FSU play for all the marbles (most years) at the end of the season, like Michigan and OSU in the Big Ten.

lsutootnanny · **Posted:** Thu Aug 26, 2004 12:16 pm

Quote:

footballgod, if you follow the BE you would see first hand all the issues that were caused by 14 team alignments.

The first attempt by the BE was to align into two 7 team divisions. Each team played round robin with members of the same division. The problem was that not every team played each other in the opposite divisions. There were always 3 members of the other division that did not play in a given year. The next year was not like a new set of four moved into play a rotation. Sometimes the same team would always play the other division member every year. It was just very confusing from a fan perspective.

Now if you look at the Big 12 and SEC, not every football team plays each other, however, the basketball teams do play at least one game against the other divisions members.

If you expand to 14, you are really two conferences without a balance that 16 members would provided.

With 12 team conferences the football teams in the other divisions play every other year. With 14, the lag would be longer.

Conferences need some type of uniform scheduling to keep the unity of the conference together.

When the BE attempted to drop the divisions and allow each of the 14 members to play at least one basketball game, the schedule became very unbalanced with 3 round robin games. I just think it was a mess.

As a I fan, I hate 14 member conferences alignments unless you have to expand for necessity like the BE did to take Va Tech as the 14th member. There were always complaints about the BE 14 team alignment no matter how the BE attempted to make it better.

The BE will return to 12 members this year and the alignment is just soo much better. Each team will play 5 round robin games and one game against the other 6.

Too bad this 12 team alginment did not have the required 8 football members to qualify as a 1A football conference.

Ironically next year with 16, the schedules become very balanced again.

Most likely the BE will have each team play the other 15 and only one round robin game or could break into two 8 team divisions. In this case, each division is finally a replication of a conference. Round robin would be fantastic with 14 games and probably 4 games against the other division. Yes there would be a break in schedules with other members, however, located in an 8 team divisions is going to provide the feeling of a round robin conference and winning an a 8 team divisions is basically winning a confernce title rather than a division title.

In the new Big East alignment, the football programs will play each other and if the BE aligns in my preference, the same football schools will play round robin basketball. The basketball schools will each play in their divisions and every thing is very balanced with 16 members. With four cross over games, each members would play the other division every other year with a balance rotation.

I will always prefer the simplicity of a 9 team all sports conference. Round robin in each of the major sports.

Next is probably a 10 member conference. This will become better with a 12 team regular season schudule that could provide 9 conference games and have all members play football. Basketball would be round robin for 18 games.

11 is very odd, however, the Big 10 makes it work.

12 is next best after 9 and 10 and does provide balance with basketball to a certain degree.

14 member conferences should be ruled out by the NCAA.

16 team conferences depending on how you align can be fantastic.

Lash, I think 14 could work for the ACC under one condition: The two divisions are comprised of a) The seven charter members and b) the rest.

Charter Division
[list][*]Clemson[/*:m]

Duke[*]Maryland[/*:m]

North Carolina[*]North Carolina State[/*:m]

Virginia[*]Wake Forest[/list:u:[/*:m]]

Newbie Division
[list][*]Boston College[/*:m]

Florida State[*]Georgia Tech[/*:m]

Miami[*]Virginia Tech[/*:m]

?[*]?[/list:u:[/*:m]]

Under this line-up, the historic heart of the ACC is kept together, and they always get a representative in the ACCCG. I doubt this will happen, but I truly believe this would work.

(For basketball, no divisions btw).

lash · **Posted:** Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:52 pm

LSUtootnanny, you have an interesting point. In one of my previous post, the negative side of 14 conferences were exposed.

This ACC alignment could actually work for basketball. If you split into two divisions and played round robin with some cross over games the old ACC members would continue to play home and home games.

The one point that needs to be ask is why would the ACC want to add two more teams?

ACC would have to increase the revenue by 20 million per year to keep current revenue levels the same.

This argument was used in debates when ACC was considering expansion to 12 and the aCC proved to make up the revenue for the additional 3 teams.

This time could be a stretch. Does ABC having any more cash to provide the ACC?

lionsndogs · **Joined:** Fri Feb 21, 2003 10:49 pm **Posts:** 21

Shuffle,

Having the lucrative championship game was very important to the ACC. They even tried for approval when at 11. Other ACC schools want in on the action too; it will not always be FSU vs Miami.

lash · **Posted:** Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:21 pm

LionsNDogs, wanting to partipate in the ACC football championship game and qualify are two different things.

Up to now, no ACC team other than Florida State has won the ACC footballchampionship in recent years.

Why would it be any different with a second bully on the block.

LSUtootnanny divisions would certainly help some team other than Miami and FSU to reach the championship game.

westwolf · **Posted:** Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:35 pm

Maryland won three years ago.

lash · **Posted:** Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:16 pm

Westwolf, did Maryland play in a BCS bowl? Which one? Geez my memory is fading.

friarfan · **Joined:** Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm **Posts:** 1522

Lash, in January, 2002, Maryland lost to Florida in the Orange Bowl.

lash · **Posted:** Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:21 pm

Friarfan, thanks for the update on Maryland.

Guess there is hope for the ACC having someone other than Miami and FSU in the championship game.

dogsncocks · **Posted:** Fri Aug 27, 2004 7:31 pm

Quote:

Maryland won three years ago.

Right, Maryland has closed the gap, and Virginia, NC State, Clemson, and I believe, North Carolina have beaten FSU before in conference play. Sure FSU has dominated, but
a few others have narrowed the gap. As far as Miami goes, last year, West Virginia in the BE beat them. Actually, the ACC will be more balanced, and in due time there will be more conference champions outside the State of Florida.

While Ted Roof is a good coach, I don't expect Duke to be playing on New Year's Day soon; but there are two or three ACC teams that will make Miami and/or Florida State earn their crown. Miami will certainly find it tougher.

lsutootnanny · **Posted:** Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:34 pm

Quote:

Friarfan, thanks for the update on Maryland.

Guess there is hope for the ACC having someone other than Miami and FSU in the championship game.

In 1995, the state of Florida (15 million folks) had three 1A schools. In 2005, the state of Florida (20 million) will have seven. UF/UM/FSU won't dominate like they used to.

fossil · **Posted:** Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:22 am

Quote:

In 1995, the state of Florida (15 million folks) had three 1A schools. In 2005, the state of Florida (20 million) will have seven. UF/UM/FSU won't dominate like they used to.

You kidding? LSUtootnanny, I agree with the vast majority of your posts, but not this one.

The Florida 3 will not lose a single significant recruit to FIU or FAU, and lose very few to USF and UCF. The state has an unreal number of awesome in-state high school athletes. That's why so many div 1-A and 1-AA teams east of the Mississippi River have a large number of Florida citizens on their roster.

The Florida 3 will continue to lose a few in-state stars to fellow BCS members (such as Georgia), but the ones going to FIU and FAU (and to a slightly lesser extent USF and UCF) will instead be the ones previously going to lesser 1A and greater 1AA programs. Check the roster of any eastern school and count the Florida kids.

The state of Florida has football productivity greatly exceeding the capacity of its colleges. Will the Florida 3 lose depth, probably. But that's it. Highly touted high-school kiddies will have no problem fitting into UGeorgia or Rutgers if their only local option is FIU/FAU (and to a lesser extent USF/UCF).

The Florida 3 WILL dominate as before. They won't be hit in proportion to the relative change in population.

However, the Florida Little 4 can steal a QB that makes national news...and very potentially a QB and WR that makes national rankings possible.

UF/FSU/Miami will continue to completely dominate the fan base of Florida for years to come. ...but, I do admit that Florida has (one of ) the best chances to quickly raise a newcomer to biggie time status.

ACC made the wrong choice for #12

Who is online